Y'know... I was born in 1981, and I get the feeling I've just missed out on the era of real television journalism. Right now, I can watch the news, and I know it's overblown, fluffy, and irrelevant, but I don't think I've ever seen good, solid news. I'd just be happy to have a point of reference.
I've just always been surprised at how badly they often do it. (Although I suppose if it was done too well, the magazine might refuse.) Oftentimes, the "Advertising Section" looks like a clunky, obvious fake. Wrong typefaces, oversized type, poor layout...
These aren't infomercials. They're pre-recorded tapes sent to newsrooms with pre-recorded "reports" that the newsroom can slip in as an actual news story. The news stations, in laziness, throw their own chrome on it and call it "time filled". Meanwhile, the sender of the tape is getting cheap, legitimized PR.
Regarding Ebay being horrible for hobby stores-- I'd say (from my albeit limited experience) It's actually not that horrible to hobby stores with half a clue. Ebay lets you buy in, and I know I've bought a number of things from small brick-mortar specialty stores that sold online as well.
I'd call sites like iTMS or EMusic a more harmful threat to their brick-mortar counterparts, being direct store-to-consumer sites.
There is the sticking point of enforcement, which I suppose is the critical unresolved issue. Individual enforcement still means action has to be taken against individuals. To enforce against facilitators (LimeWire, Pirate's Bay, et al), would involve careful, possibly even impossible crafting so as not to include people like the authors of BitTorrent or other legitimate filesharing apps.
Also, you mention the artists and labels issue-- I'm not a musician, but I've read a number of accounts on how the major-labels continuously screw their artists from a number of angles. In today's environment of logistical plenty, I just don't understand why complaining about the situation is preferable to just going with a smaller label or self-publishing. Sure, you'd have smaller volume, but larger cuts.
Of course, thinking about it further, I suppose it makes sense that major-label gripes continuously make the "news". Even if more people go indie, major-labels, by their very nature, are going to be the visible ones worldwide, and their policies will still be seen as the norm. For music listeners as well, they're more likely to decry the unavailability or restrictions of the airplayed Top 40 that they want to listen to than to look into the relative freedom of the deeper levels that aren't constantly played on the radio. I still find it amusing and indicative that, during the time of one of the big fiascos around major-label CD copy protection (the "just hold shift" protection), I ended up actually buying one minor-label album and two EPs (which I normally wouldn't) because they included (copyable, even) CD-ROM/DVD video content in the package for little-to-no extra cost. It's almost as if... they wanted me to buy it!
I'll second that last idea. I think the problem is that current law and the industry itself has polarized things into an "all-or-nothing" situation. Reasonably (IMHO), copyright violation involving low-volume personal infringement should be handled akin to a traffic ticket. You get caught, you pay reasonable statuatory rates (Say, 3-5x what the *reasonable* market value of the work was), or you can contest it.
I'd be on the side of the 'AAs, if they weren't completely nuts in their practical application of copyright enforcement.
I think the problem is that the piracy problem looks completely different from different angles, and everyone has a good reason to go overboard. On one hand, it's just some ordinary goob getting songs off whatever's Napster nowadays. On aggregate, however, piracy can (supposedly) affect sales. Also, artists should, ideologically, have reasonable control over distribution of their work. OTOH, though, artists have allowed that control to be used destructively and counterproductively, and have created resentment. Don't forget, as well, the back-alley wholesale copy shops that really are copying thousands of discs and making and breaking profits.
I actually use something simpler (okay, well that's debatable, but I've just never liked obfuscation schemes) than that, that seems to work. It's based on the idea (which usually rings true) that spammable addresses are everywhere, and most spammers' scrapers won't bother with anything remotely complex. Here's the deal:
The page with email addresses on it calls a PHP script. It checks for the existence of a particular cookie or a certain GET string ("?show-email-addresses=true"). If either one of these is there, it renders email addresses normally. If they aren't there, it renders addresses as "address(AT)example.com", sets the cookie, and writes a JavaScript to reload the page (with the GET string appended).
Any interactive browser (not a crawler), on the first pass, will save the cookie, run the Javascript, reload the page, and the user will only have a short delay, and only the first time the page loads. If JavaScript or reloading doesn't happen, they'll just get address(AT)example.com.
First, the DrillerKiller(tm) robot bores out precisely-measured cylindrical core-samples of 100% American Beef from the onsite cattle supply. Then it is ground (or thin-sliced with the optional attachment, see catalog), and meted into precisely-measured portions...
When I (rarely) post on USENET, I'll often include an email address, albeit not my main address. My tactic is to just put it in my signature like:
FLEB -- spammers.sh@ll.bow-down-to.us Put "Hey!" in the subject to bypass the spamtrap.
and a simple rule dumping everything that doesn't include "Hey!" keeps it clean and fresh. If an actual conversation starts, I can always give out my main address.
My biggest problem of late is that one of my business clients got their email account pwned, and now the spam is slowly starting to drip into my formerly-pristine business account. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what caused it.
There's a point where you have to blame people for their own actions. That's roughly at the point where they start making explicit choices based on available information. Anything more, and the OS (or any other program) just starts becoming useless under the weight of handholding and artificial restrictions.
About the only thing I could see worth adding (if it isn't already... I haven't kept up on the Vista betas) is some sort of good central logging function, so when people like you 'n' I get called in to decraptivate the machine, there's a way we can look and go "Here. This is the point at which you were an idiot. Don't do this again."
Spend more time and work to make the OS intentionally and pointlessly annoy the user? No.
If you wanted to take this approach, all you'd need to do is make it a bit scary. Hide the Admin account away, and maybe do something like Safe Mode, putting "Administrative Mode" in big ugly systemtype in the four corners of the screen. That, and make it so people rarely need to run in Admin mode.
Slashdot Mirror
Y'know... I was born in 1981, and I get the feeling I've just missed out on the era of real television journalism. Right now, I can watch the news, and I know it's overblown, fluffy, and irrelevant, but I don't think I've ever seen good, solid news. I'd just be happy to have a point of reference.
I've just always been surprised at how badly they often do it. (Although I suppose if it was done too well, the magazine might refuse.) Oftentimes, the "Advertising Section" looks like a clunky, obvious fake. Wrong typefaces, oversized type, poor layout...
These aren't infomercials. They're pre-recorded tapes sent to newsrooms with pre-recorded "reports" that the newsroom can slip in as an actual news story. The news stations, in laziness, throw their own chrome on it and call it "time filled". Meanwhile, the sender of the tape is getting cheap, legitimized PR.
If you're dressing up as PacMan, you're playing a character, albeit a rather two-dimensional (pun intended?) one.
It's a discussion group. We're discussing. No one here has the power to nullify their license, however we can (do and should) put it to scrutiny.
Regarding Ebay being horrible for hobby stores-- I'd say (from my albeit limited experience) It's actually not that horrible to hobby stores with half a clue. Ebay lets you buy in, and I know I've bought a number of things from small brick-mortar specialty stores that sold online as well.
I'd call sites like iTMS or EMusic a more harmful threat to their brick-mortar counterparts, being direct store-to-consumer sites.
So then you get your identity stolen and have to deal with false debt and overdraft fees.
Just what I was thinking. Basically it's (dare I say) "LARP 2.0".
Of course, I say more power to 'em. If they can advance the state of the art and sustain a company doing it, good for them.
Yeah... that's exactly what I was trying to say.
When companies tried this in the old days american workers were willing to stand up and strike
Somehow, reams of legalese just don't have the weight of... real problems.
Sounds like a job for TrueCrypt's "plausable deniability" features.
Now how are you going to get around THAT?
Periodic live-CD system file scanning?
There is the sticking point of enforcement, which I suppose is the critical unresolved issue. Individual enforcement still means action has to be taken against individuals. To enforce against facilitators (LimeWire, Pirate's Bay, et al), would involve careful, possibly even impossible crafting so as not to include people like the authors of BitTorrent or other legitimate filesharing apps.
Also, you mention the artists and labels issue-- I'm not a musician, but I've read a number of accounts on how the major-labels continuously screw their artists from a number of angles. In today's environment of logistical plenty, I just don't understand why complaining about the situation is preferable to just going with a smaller label or self-publishing. Sure, you'd have smaller volume, but larger cuts.
Of course, thinking about it further, I suppose it makes sense that major-label gripes continuously make the "news". Even if more people go indie, major-labels, by their very nature, are going to be the visible ones worldwide, and their policies will still be seen as the norm. For music listeners as well, they're more likely to decry the unavailability or restrictions of the airplayed Top 40 that they want to listen to than to look into the relative freedom of the deeper levels that aren't constantly played on the radio. I still find it amusing and indicative that, during the time of one of the big fiascos around major-label CD copy protection (the "just hold shift" protection), I ended up actually buying one minor-label album and two EPs (which I normally wouldn't) because they included (copyable, even) CD-ROM/DVD video content in the package for little-to-no extra cost. It's almost as if... they wanted me to buy it!
Ahh, so if we record the installation CD to a tape... I'll get "chrome".
They sold out.
I'll second that last idea. I think the problem is that current law and the industry itself has polarized things into an "all-or-nothing" situation. Reasonably (IMHO), copyright violation involving low-volume personal infringement should be handled akin to a traffic ticket. You get caught, you pay reasonable statuatory rates (Say, 3-5x what the *reasonable* market value of the work was), or you can contest it.
I'd be on the side of the 'AAs, if they weren't completely nuts in their practical application of copyright enforcement.
I think the problem is that the piracy problem looks completely different from different angles, and everyone has a good reason to go overboard. On one hand, it's just some ordinary goob getting songs off whatever's Napster nowadays. On aggregate, however, piracy can (supposedly) affect sales. Also, artists should, ideologically, have reasonable control over distribution of their work. OTOH, though, artists have allowed that control to be used destructively and counterproductively, and have created resentment. Don't forget, as well, the back-alley wholesale copy shops that really are copying thousands of discs and making and breaking profits.
I actually use something simpler (okay, well that's debatable, but I've just never liked obfuscation schemes) than that, that seems to work. It's based on the idea (which usually rings true) that spammable addresses are everywhere, and most spammers' scrapers won't bother with anything remotely complex. Here's the deal:
The page with email addresses on it calls a PHP script. It checks for the existence of a particular cookie or a certain GET string ("?show-email-addresses=true"). If either one of these is there, it renders email addresses normally. If they aren't there, it renders addresses as "address(AT)example.com", sets the cookie, and writes a JavaScript to reload the page (with the GET string appended).
Any interactive browser (not a crawler), on the first pass, will save the cookie, run the Javascript, reload the page, and the user will only have a short delay, and only the first time the page loads. If JavaScript or reloading doesn't happen, they'll just get address(AT)example.com.
Trains? No, no, no.
First, the DrillerKiller(tm) robot bores out precisely-measured cylindrical core-samples of 100% American Beef from the onsite cattle supply. Then it is ground (or thin-sliced with the optional attachment, see catalog), and meted into precisely-measured portions...
The nice thing with that setup is that you can check your email from anywhere... you don't even need to be online!
My biggest problem of late is that one of my business clients got their email account pwned, and now the spam is slowly starting to drip into my formerly-pristine business account. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what caused it.
Mod parent redundant?
Perhaps the computer just shouldn't turn on.
There's a point where you have to blame people for their own actions. That's roughly at the point where they start making explicit choices based on available information. Anything more, and the OS (or any other program) just starts becoming useless under the weight of handholding and artificial restrictions.
About the only thing I could see worth adding (if it isn't already... I haven't kept up on the Vista betas) is some sort of good central logging function, so when people like you 'n' I get called in to decraptivate the machine, there's a way we can look and go "Here. This is the point at which you were an idiot. Don't do this again."
Spend more time and work to make the OS intentionally and pointlessly annoy the user? No.
If you wanted to take this approach, all you'd need to do is make it a bit scary. Hide the Admin account away, and maybe do something like Safe Mode, putting "Administrative Mode" in big ugly systemtype in the four corners of the screen. That, and make it so people rarely need to run in Admin mode.
Why in the world would the "oil companies" give a rat's ass about "man made" global warming in the first place?
Solutions to the problem often cut out oil usage. No problem, no solutions, no oil-cutting needed.
Long distance tape gun!